Iran War: Resource
Info

It is impossible to assess what is truthfully happening between the USA,
Iran - and Israel. There is zero media discussion. There are no comparative
assessments of international news. How many people know exactly what war
preparations are now in place, and what future plans are being made?
Following is an (incomplete) collection of international news articles
concerning a potential World War III. I have taken most earlier articles
relating to Iran from
PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses - A Biopsy on Imperialism; Part II:
"Special Interests" - The Persian Gulf and collated them with more
recent articles.

If one compares the engineering of the crisis which led to the war of
aggression against Iraq with the current engineering of crisis to justify
aggression against Iran, one is not likely to identify differences. The lies
and the language are the same. The path to peaceful resolution is
deliberately replaced by the path to war of aggression. The motive is to
manipulate public opinion and justify war of aggression against another
Muslim nation.
Ghali Hassan.

The American hypocrisy, presently focused mainly on Iran, is grounded in the
US endorsement of the Iran Nuclear Program which was initiated during
President Ford's administration, reports Ed Haas. Cheney, Rumsfeld and
Wolfovitz held key positions at this time. Read this story
here.

Terence Gatt, in November '05, wrote in
The Enduring Threat, A Brief History. "The American harsh stand reflects
a longstanding mutual suspicion that has characterized relations between
Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Iranian Revolution ...The controversial
issue of Iranian ambitions for a civilian nuclear energy project ironically
began with the assistance of the United States during the reign of Muhammad
Reza Shah Pahlevi ... Iran purchased a research nuclear reactor from the
United States that was put into operation in 1967."

In January '06, Paul Rogers wrote in Open Democracy: "The United States and
its British ally are planning to modernise their nuclear-weapons arsenal
while castigating Iran for its nuclear-power programme."
More

Enver Masud said that Israel was not a signatory to the
Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. "... it is no secret that (Israel) has
been threatening strikes on Iran's Bushehr nuclear electric power plant -
just as it launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on Iraq's Osirak
nuclear electric power plant in 1981." AFP announced that
Israel Will Not Allow Iran To Obtain WMDs. According to a Times article,
Israel's special forces are trying to find Iran's secret enrichment
sites. These forces are based inside Iraq, with the approval of Americans.
In this same article is a discussion of NATO's possible involvement in a
military strike against Iran.

On 24 January,
Julian Borger wrote in the Guardian: "George Bush yesterday committed
the US to the defence of Israel against threats from Iran, saying he would
not allow the world to be 'blackmailed' by an Iranian nuclear weapon."

Bush said, "We're
committed to the safety of Israel." So much so that the US is financing
Israel's armament industry. Last year, the United States delivered
500 "bunker-busting" bombs to Israel. The conservative total for U.S.
aid to Israel is
$91b. The world owes Israel
$23b, says YnetNews.1

In January '06, the US tried to
blackmail India: "The Americans have warned India that its nuclear deal
signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's last trip to Washington will
die in Congress if it doesn't back the US on Iran." The US is said to now
have a new nuclear agreement with India, which would enable New Delhi to
"expand atomic weapons production."2
WorldWatch, in its report, 'China and India', says that renewable energy
sources "would be more practical energy solutions." The report also says:
"It's going to be tough to argue that Iran and North Korea should be denied
nuclear technology while India--which has failed to even join the
Non-Proliferation Treaty--is given the same technology on a silver platter."

The US has nothing against nuclear power. With a new plan called the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership announced with the
Fiscal Year 2007 budget earlier this month, Bush said, "Under this
partnership, America will work with nations that have
advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France, Japan, and
Russia."

Nor has Bush criticized
China. The commercial satellite photos from 2000 - 2004 provide a new
look at China's nuclear forces and bases."

The worst hypocrisy of all was committed on February 23, when the US and the
UK conducted a joint subcritical nuclear test at the US test site in Nevada.

On 4 March '06,
Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post: "The Bush administration
is developing plans to design and deploy refurbished or replacement warheads
for the nuclear stockpile, and by 2030 to modernize the production complex
so that, if required, it could produce new generations of weapons with
different or modified capabilities."

In August '06, S. O'Neill wrote in an article entitled
The Hypocrisy of Corporate Wars in Axis of Logic: "Wars of conquest over
the past centuries, or even millennia, have been fought not to add to the
comfort of the people who were represented in the invading armies or their
families at home, but for the increased feeling of power of the emperors,
kings or presidents."

"Audacious in its shameless and extreme hypocrisy. The man who has led
the world in violence during the first years of the 21st century could pay
homage to the world's leading practitioner of nonviolence during the first
half of the 20th century". Normon Solomon,
Mahatma Bush.

Lying Like It's 2003
21.01.07. Frank Rich, NYTimes / Truth Out. The latest lies are custom-made
to prop up the new "way forward" that is anything but. Among the emerging
examples is a rewriting of the history of Iraq's sectarian violence. The
fictional version was initially laid out by Mr. Bush in his Jan. 10
prime-time speech and has since been repeated on television by both Mr.
Cheney and the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, last Sunday and by
Mr. Bush again on PBS's "NewsHour" on Tuesday. It goes like this: sectarian
violence didn't start spiraling out of control until the summer of 2006,
after Sunni terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra and forced the
Shiites to take revenge. But as Mark Seibel of McClatchy Newspapers noted
last week, "the president's account understates by at least 15 months when
Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics." They
were visible in embryo long before that; The Times, among others, reported
as far back as September 2003 that Shiite militias were becoming more
radical, dangerous and anti-American. … In reality we're learning piece by
piece that it is the White House that has no plan.

PETRO-DOLLAR WARFARE WITH IRAN

Discussion about the Iranian Bourse has never been Top of The Pops for
either the US government or Mainstream Media. Instead, Iran's nuclear energy
development leading to future (10 years?) theoretical (only) nuclear bombs
in Iran is the Pentagon's propaganda
rotating shovel, mirroring Saddam's non-existent WMD fables. Once again,
no questions are being asked. Is MSM as guilty of deception as the
governments they parrot?

In October '04, William Clarke wrote an article,
The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target. "The Iranians are about to
commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro
of Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000" (see above). "Numerous articles
have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as
2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear
ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real
Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming
euro-based oil Bourse."

Clarke wrote a
further article in August '05, Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and
the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse Media Monitors. One can hear Mr. Clark's 28
January '06 talk on the petrodollar
here

Mike Whitney also says that 'Iran's Oil-exchange threatens the
Greenback.' "This is why Bush and Co. are planning to lead the nation to war
against Iran. It is straightforward defense of the current global system and
the continuing dominance of the reserve currency, the dollar."

The Plan for Economic Strangulation of Iran
12.01.07. Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar, ICH. “While people are concerned with Iraq and
the gathering armada in the Persian Gulf, United States has been quietly
carrying out a not so covert economic war against Iran. … It is difficult to
see how United States expects Iran to cooperate on Iraq and Afghanistan
while being threatened militarily and suffocated economically. It may also
all be a negotiating tactics. First show the guns and then negotiate. But in
my opinion this is neither a bluff nor a negotiating tactic. Bush
administration is behaving like a gambler that has lost everything except
his house. Now in one last desperate attempt it is raising the bet to all or
nothing. Let us hope that the Democrats will stop Bush before he
accidentally or by design start another war in an already volatile region.”
Excellent reference list.

IRAN AND GAS

In January '06, the Financial Express reported that
India fears Iran may extract a high price for piped gas. In February,
the
Asia Times noted that India has been pursuing discussions about a
Iran-Pakistan-India
gas pipeline. The United States would prefer Pakistan and India to build
a gas pipeline linking them to Turkmenistan - instead of Iran. Will
Mushareff, who has been given bases in exchange for F16s, give up this
pipeline?

The “Surge” Is A Red Herring
12.01.07. P. Craig Roberts, ICH
Bush can tell blatant propagandistic lies, because Congress and the American
people don’t know enough facts to realize the absurdity of Bush’s
assertions.

Why is Bush telling these lies? Here is the answer: Bush says, “We will
disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support
from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing
advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

In those words, Bush states perfectly clearly that victory in Iraq requires
US forces to attack Iran and Syria. Moreover, Bush says, “We are also taking
other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests
in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional
carrier strike group to the region.”

Video. BBC Report: Cheney
Rejected Iran's 'Help.' 1 min.37.
17.01.07. BBC, Newsnight. Newsnight has uncovered an extraordinary letter
written after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 where Tehran offers to withdraw
military backing for Hamas and Hezbollah as well as give open access to
their nuclear facilities, but Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected
the plan, the official said.

Speaking after talks with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Iranian
ambassador Hassan Kazemi has demanded to be shown "any shred of evidence
that Iran is working to destabilise Iraq," as the US alleges.

"We are working for, not against, security in Iraq, because we know that
insecurity justifies maintaining foreign troops in the country," he said.

"Iran is disposed to helping to train and equip Iraqi security forces to
combat terrorism."

U.S. Launches Armed Force to Block Iranian Influence in Iraq
18.01.07. USNWR / ICH. ‘The U.S. military has launched a special operations
task force to break up Iranian influence in Iraq, according to U.S. News
sources. The special operations mission, known as Task Force 16, was created
late last year to target Iranians trafficking arms and training Shiite
militia forces. The operation is modeled on Task Force 15, a clandestine
cadre of Navy SEALs, Army Delta Force soldiers, and CIA operatives with a
mission to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives and Baathist insurgents in
Iraq.’

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
07.01.07. Sunday Times. ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s
uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Two Israeli air
force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield
nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

Israel’s plans to Wage Nuclear War on Iran: History of Israel's Nuclear
Arsenal
15.01.07. Michael Carmichael. Global Research.ca. This article expands upon
an earlier text published by Global Research. Hundreds of nuclear warheads
under the control of Israel's defense establishment. In 1986, an Israeli
civil servant who worked in the state-owned nuclear industry flew to London
where he was invited to meet with reporters working for The Sunday Times. In
these press briefings, Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel’s top secret - the
Israelis had gained control of a growing stockpile of nuclear warheads. …
“During his confirmation hearings last month, Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates responded to a question about potential US military intervention
against Iran. Mr. Gates stated that such an attack could have, “devastating
consequences,” for America and her friends in the region.

Mr. Gates was right. The reality is stark. If Israel attacks Iran, she will
be playing Russian roulette on a grand scale. The retaliation from a broad
spectrum of nations and multinational militias in the Middle East could
bring about a concerted series of devastating hard power attacks against
both Israeli and American forces arrayed in a dense cluster from Iraq to
Kuwait, Qatar and the Persian Gulf.”

Iran: Thinking the Unthinkable
15.01.07. C. Hannilan, Foreign Policy in Focus. ‘recent statements by top
Israeli officials and military figures -- along with recent White House
threats against Iran and Syria and a shuffling of American commanders in the
Middle East -- suggest that the possibility is real.’

A Powerful Voice: An Interview with Ilan Pape
17.01.07. uruknet. Liam Bailey. “Yes the manipulation of the Holocaust
memory is to allow the policies I have described above to be carried out
without interruption. But I do think the fear in Israel is not from a
nuclear attack from Iran, it is clear that the worst that can happen is
deterrence policies such as the ones that took place in The Cold War. The
fear is from a serious challenge to Israel's absolute military hegemony in
the area.”

Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals
20.01.07. What Really Happened. For two years, the FBI has suspected AIPAC
of spying for a foreign country, and for those two years (and for decades
before) that group suspected of spying for Israel has been reshaping the US
Congress for the benefit of a foreign government

Signs of Emerging U.S., Israeli, Sunni Arab Alliance against Iran
23.01.07. Sick / Gwertzman interview, Council on Foreign Relations. Gary G.
Sick, a former National Security Council adviser on Iran, says an “emerging
strategy” is developing that brings the United States, Israel, and Sunni
Arab states in an informal alliance against Iran. He does not believe the
United States would launch a military attack on Iran at this time because it
lacks the military ability to be in Iraq and Iran at the same time.

Israel raises nuclear stakes with Iran
25.01.07. A. Penketh, Independent. ‘ "The Jewish people, with the scars of
the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to allow itself to face
threats of annihilation once again," Mr Olmert said in a speech to a
high-level security conference in Herzliya. "No nation has the right even to
consider its position. It is the obligation of every country to act against
this will all its might." "We can stand up against nuclear threats and even
prevent them," he said. ‘

RUSSIA

Russian Admiral Says U.S. Navy Prepares Missile Strike on Iran
15.01.07. Mosnews/Legitgov. U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil
off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon’s military plans include
not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes
against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet,
Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency.

Over the past year, the Bush administration has persuaded bankers across
Europe and Asia to choke off some Iranian and North Korean access to the
world financial system, using the taint of terrorism and corruption as
leverage. … Their success so far owes more to the self-interest of banks
than to the foreign policy goals of Washington, which accuses both nations
of rogue behavior from counterfeiting U.S. money in Pyongyang to hiding a
nuclear weapons program in Tehran. U.S. officials say banks have more to
lose from rubbing shoulders with foreign banks, trading companies or
governments linked to criminal behavior or terrorism. …
The United States alone can't prevent a foreign entity from doing business
with alleged bad guys. But by taking relatively small steps to blacklist two
banks that do business with North Korea and Iran, the Bush administration
has introduced a whiff of scandal to transactions with those banks or
governments. There is a powerful unspoken message in the U.S. presentations,
too. In effect, foreign banks have been warned that their access to the vast
U.S. banking system may be at risk if the administration eventually bars all
U.S. transactions with overseas institutions that do business with groups
tied to terrorism.

The financial moves have gained in appeal because the United Nations has a
spotty record of applying meaningful sanctions, and because U.N. action is
often laborious and slow. Although the Security Council acted swiftly to
retaliate after North Korea tested a nuclear device in October, it has taken
nearly a year to produce a weak sanctions resolution on Iran.

The solo U.S. financial strategy is more flexible than international
diplomacy, requiring no approval from Congress or other countries. And
though there are risks, particularly in the case of Iran, the strategy has
worked better than its designers had hoped. … In the case of Iran, the
United States banned U.S. banks from performing an indirect electronic
maneuver that allowed a large state-owned bank to broker the sale of oil or
other exports overseas in dollars. Oil is traditionally traded in dollars,
although U.S. firms are generally barred from doing any business in Iran
because of long-standing U.S. sanctions. Following the North Korean example,
the United States targeted only Tehran-based Bank Saderat. Making the
announcement in September, Levey listed four Mideast terror groups the bank
is accused of serving. Iran denied the allegations but it hardly mattered.
For months, U.S. officials had been showing bankers across Europe what they
claim is evidence that Iran's central bank used the international financial
system to funnel money to terrorists elsewhere.

Even before the Saderat move, the Swiss bank UBS cut off all dealings with
Iran, and European banks HSBC and Credit Suisse scaled back their business
there. …”

Israel warns Russia on Iran arms sale
17.01.07. Turkish Weekly. Voicing extreme concern over Russia's recent sale
of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, senior diplomatic and defense
officials warned Moscow Tuesday that the deal could have serious security
implications that would even "get back to Russia."

US lacks 'explosive' evidence against Iran
17.01.07. G. Porter, ICH. For 18 months, the administration of US President
George W Bush has periodically raised the charge that Iran is supplying
anti-coalition forces in Iraq with arms. … Previously, high administration
officials have always admitted that they had no real evidence to support
these claims. Now, they are going further. The Bush administration made a
decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran. On
August 4, 2005, Pentagon and intelligence officials leaked the story to the
National Broadcasting Co (NBC) and the Columbia Broadcasting System that US
troops had "intercepted" dozens of shaped charges said to have been
"smuggled into northeastern Iraq only last week".

U.S. has few bargaining chips
in Iran disputes: Gates
18.01.07. A. Gray, Washington Post. The United States has little reason to
negotiate with Iran now because the government in Tehran does not want
anything from Washington, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday.

Gates seeks Saudi help to end Iran's nuclear work
18.01.07. Daily Star. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates touched down in
Saudi Arabia Wednesday, angling for support in confronting Iran's nuclear
ambitions as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left Kuwait at the end
of her Mideast tour.

US luring Arab states into anti-Iran role: experts
International news. Determined to halt the Iranian nuclear programme, the
United States has sought to lure its largely Sunni Arab allies into adopting
positions that are likely to antagonise Shia- dominated Iran, Arab analysts
believe.

Israel warns Russia on Iran arms sale
Voicing extreme concern over Russia's recent sale of advanced anti-aircraft
missiles to Iran, senior diplomatic and defense officials warned Moscow
Tuesday that the deal could have serious security implications that would
even "get back to Russia."
Jerusalem Post. (What about US arms
sales to Israel?)

Texan Poker Bluff and Persian Chess Moves
22.01.07. K Gajendra Singh, ICHblog. Like Iraq , some fancy schemes are on
the anvil in the Pentagon .To ward off the threats to the world economy if
Tehran curtailed oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the US has
reportedly made contingency plans for the indefinite takeover of Iranian
territory in Chah Bahar, which would deny Tehran its strategic leverage with
Hormuz.

U.S. warns Iran to back down
23.01.07. J. KRANE, AP. A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now
steaming toward the Middle East is Washington's way of warning Iran to back
down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here
Tuesday. … "Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will
protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us," Burns continued.

At the very moment when US/UK oil companies are signing an agreement to take
Iraqi oil under their imperial wings, this story appears:
Report:-Iran (sic) -eyeing-southern-Iraqs-oil
16.01.07. Daily India/playdfuls. British military intelligence officials are
concerned Iran is building its influence in the southern oil-rich Iraqi city
of Basra, The Telegraph said Tuesday.

SANCTIONS IN IRAN?

In 1997, the former director of the CIA, and the former US Ambassador to
Iran,
Richard Helms stated that sanctions had "not changed Iranian behaviour"
and that they were "too crude a device for such a complex nation of
different groups and languages."

On the 18th of January '06, the
Hindustan Times said that Israel, the EU and US were preparing sanctions
against Iran. The Israeli defense and civilian agencies' proposals for
sanctions, presented to European and American officials, included " an oil
embargo, a ban on Iran's football team from participating in this summer's
World Cup, a denial of entry visas to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and
officials involved in Iran's nuclear programme, a halt to the International
Atomic Energy Agency's technical cooperation with Tehran on nuclear issues
and a restriction on the country's civilian aircraft landings."

Professor Abbas Edalat is a founding member of the newly formed Campaign
against Sanctions and Intervention in Iran (CASMII). He recently traveled to
the US and
spoke at MIT and San Francisco about war and sanctions and the coming
hostilities against Iran.

Hans Blix "thinks the West has not offered Iran enough. Compared to what
has been offered to North Korea, U.S. offers to Iran have been 'rather
miserable.' "

Meanwhile,
Iran and Cuba have signed a banking agreement, expanding cooperation in
various commercial, banking, agriculture, health and cultural fields. And
China and Iran are near an oil field deal.

What are
the hidden stakes in the Iran crisis? Thierry Meyssan writes: "the US
have military control of part of the Caspian basin and of a corridor
enabling them to link this area with the Indian Ocean (Afghanistan and
Pakistan). They have also taken control of the key areas of the Gulf (Saudi
Arabia and Iraq). At the end of this operation, Washington should have
complete control over the world's main hydrocarbon production and reserves.
It will control the world economy without the need to share power."

British arms exports to Israel doubled last year
25.07.06. Islamic Republic News Agency. The report revealed that 120
Standard Individual Export Licenses, worth Pnds £23.5 million (Dlrs 43 m)
were issued to British companies applying to sell military equipment to
Israel in 2005.

21.10.04.
Eyeing Iran Reactors, Israel Seeks U.S. Bunker Bombs
Reuters / Common Dreams. The United States plans to sell Israel $319 million
worth of air-launched bombs, including 500 "bunker busters" able to
penetrate Iran's underground nuclear facilities, Israeli security sources
said on Tuesday.

Who's Arming Israel?
26.06.06. Berrigan / Haertung, Foreign Policy in Focus. “The United States
is the primary source of Israel's far superior arsenal. For more than 30
years, Israel had been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance and
since 1985 Jerusalem has received about $3 billion in military and economic
aid each year from Washington. U.S. aid accounts for more than 20% of
Israel's total defense budget.

Over the past decade, the United States has transferred more than $17
billion in military aid to this country of just under 7 million people….

During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel received $10.5
billion in Foreign Military Financing—the Pentagon's biggest military aid
program—and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. The aid figure is larger
than the arms transfer figure because it includes financing for major arms
agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most
prominent of these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s
to Israel.”

In July ’06, during Israel’s war against Lebanon,
more arms were rushed to Israel, some through UK airports. The
‘hazardous cargo’ caused problems for the UK government. A news blackout was
then imposed.

"by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels
a day. So where is the oil going to come from? ... While many regions of the
world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the
world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies,
even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress
continues to be slow."
Dick Cheney, then Halliburton CEO, 1999

William Rivers Pitt stated in January '06 that an attack on Iran was a
Looming Folly.

In February '06,
Michael Keefer wrote an important analysis, 'Petrodollars and Nuclear
Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran'. Iran, he
said, had "been in the gun-sights of George W. Bush and his entourage from
the moment that he was parachuted into the presidency in November 2000 by
his father's Supreme Court." He references the Israeli Threat Factor, saying
that "the United States and Israel
17 were working out the targeting details of an aerial attack in
June '05." He talks about "deliberate arms trafficking with Turkey, whom the
US needs to consent to the 'aggression' against Iran." He refers to the
Teheran Oil Bourse, which "poses a threat to the status of the U.S. dollar
as the principal world reserve currency."

The Iran Plans
04.08.05. Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker. "The Bush Administration, while
publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear
weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified
planning for a possible major air attack."

The UK media finally print this news.
Allies 'go after' Iran as beefed-up naval force sails for Gulf
(16.01.07, Times on Line.) "Two Royal Navy Minehunters have arrived in the
Gulf to reinforce a naval frigate on patrol in the area. ... Britain’s
contribution is two minehunters HMS Blyth and HMS Ramsey, which will remain
in the Gulf for an unusually-long two-year mission to keep shipping routes
open in the event that Iran attempts to block oil exports. ... The USS
Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf in December.
... It will be joined by the USS John C. Stennis carrier group. This is the
first time since the invasion of Iraq four years ago that the US has
deployed two carrier strike groups in the Gulf at one time.

In addition, President Bush has ordered the deployment of an air defence
battalion equipped with Patriot missile batteries to protect America’s Gulf
Arab allies from possible air attack from Iran.

Target Iran
21.12.06 Scott Ritter / Seymour Hersh, Democracy Now broadcast, 50 min. The
aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its strike group entered the Persian Gulf on
Dec. 11. Another aircraft carrier, the Stennis, is expected to depart for
the Gulf within the next month. The military said it is also taking steps to
prevent Iran from blocking oil shipments from the Gulf.

U.S. puts squeeze on Iran's oil fields
07.01.07. LA Times. As Washington wages a very public battle against Iran's
quest for nuclear power, it is quietly gaining ground on another energy
front: the oil fields that are the Islamic Republic's lifeblood.

Distracting Congress from the Real War Plan
10.01.07. Paul Craig Roberts, ICH. The US Congress and media are focused on
President Bush’s proposal for an increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq, while
Israel and its American neoconservative allies prepare an assault on Iran. …
The Bush administration has recently doubled its aircraft carrier forces and
air power in the Persian Gulf. According to credible news reports, the
Israeli air force has been making practice runs in preparation for an attack
on Iran.

US sends warplanes to Turkey's Incirlik military base
11.01.07. Kuwait News Agency. U.S. F-16 jet-fighters arrived Thursday in
Incirlik Air base in southern Turkish city of Adana after, the first time in
three years. ... According to Local Cihan News Agency, at least 16 F-16 jets
joined by early warning system AWACS airplane, as well as tanker airplanes
landed here at Incirlik coming from an American base in Germany.

This is odd, because in April 2004, in spite of ! an offer of a nuclear
reactor, Turkey refused a US request to allow an attack on Iran from a
Turkish base.In June ’06, the question of 90 US nuclear bombs at Incirlik was being brought before the
Turkish parliament. WHAT WAS THE RESULTING DECISION?

Tensions rise as Washington accuses Iran over militias
14.01.07. A. Buncombe, Independent. Tensions between the US and Iran were
set to escalate last night after it was revealed that President George Bush
had signed an executive order several months ago, authorising American
troops to undertake wide-ranging military action against Iranian operatives
active inside Iraq.Now read this:
Media Distortions: Preparing us for War with Iran
19.01.07. F. Rudmin, Globalresearch.ca. The difference between "a"
and "the" can be the difference between no war and nuclear war. But
it was all false. The supposed facts were fiction. We were fooled by public
relations lies, by repeated propaganda, by so-called experts and
authorities, and by rhetorical tricks, including clever use of "the". Media
distortions in the Independent (14.01.07) revealed.

Gates Says U.S. Resolved to Remain in Persian Gulf
15.01.07. D. Cloud, NY Times. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday
that Iran was “acting in a very negative way” in the Middle East and that
the United States was building up its forces to demonstrate its resolve to
remain in the Persian Gulf. … President Bush announced last week, in his
speech laying his new Iraq strategy, that he was also sending a second
aircraft carrier and several Patriot anti-missile batteries to the Persian
Gulf.

“The United States has had a strong presence in the Gulf for a long time,”
Mr. Gates. “We are simply reaffirming that” with the buildup, he said.

Iran: Thinking the Unthinkable
15.01.07. C. Hannilan, Foreign Policy in Focus. ‘recent statements by top
Israeli officials and military figures -- along with recent White House
threats against Iran and Syria and a shuffling of American commanders in the
Middle East -- suggest that the possibility is real.’

Escalation Against Iran
16.01.07. Col Sam Gardiner, Counterpunch. The Pieces Are Being Put in Place.
‘The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The
United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran. ...
The second carrier strike group leaves the U.S. west coast on January 16. It
will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and
the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to
the Gulf.’

The Coming Wars
17.01.07. Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker. 'The Bush Administration is looking
at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level intelligence official
told me. "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war
and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last
hurrah-we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the
war on terrorism." '

Attacking Iran: What’s In It For Bush?
17.01.07. Paul Craig Roberts, ICH. Suddenly the media is full of Bush Regime
propagandistic assertions designed to make the American public believe that
Iran is the enemy that is fighting against our troops in Iraq. To facilitate
this deception, the Bush Regime staged a propaganda event by invading an
Iranian government liaison office in Northern Iraq, kidnapping the Iranian
officials and declaring them to be involved in plans to kill US troops.

Bush's tough tactics are a 'declaration of war'
12/21(?).01.07. A. Penketh, Independent. American forces stormed Iranian
government offices in northern Iraq, hours after President George Bush
issued a warning to Tehran that was described as a "declaration of war". The
soldiers detained six people, including diplomats, according to the
Iranians, and seized documents and computers in the pre-dawn raid which was
condemned by Iran. A leading UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said the
incident was an "extreme provocation". Dr Ansari said that Mr Bush's speech
on future Iraq strategy amounted to "a declaration of war" on Iran. … "We
will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and
training to our enemies in Iraq," (Bush) said.

Asked for her view of an Israeli military operation in Iran should diplomacy
fail, (Condi) replied: "Well, I think that even talk of such just shows how
very serious it would be to have Iran
continue its program unabated."
Condoleeza Rice , Reuters, 14.01.07. (no
mention of US or Israeli nukes, then?) And, (10.01.07), Scoop (legitgov)
reports that
Companies Refusing To Reveal Biotech Research "Some 113 university,
government, hospital and corporate laboratories engaged in research often
with potential to be used for germ warfare have refused to disclose their
operations to the public as required by Federal rules, a nonprofit watchdog
agency has charged."

Don't Mourn: Annotate
18.01.07. Foreign Policy In Focus. Today we face a different barrage of
words from Washington, but one also drafted in the service of a grand
ideological battle. Mindful of the tyranny of images, President Bush
attempted in his prosecution of the war in Iraq to imprint pictures of
success on the public mind: a hated statue pulled down, a haggard Hussein
captured, a victory banner on an aircraft carrier. But those few pictures of
putative success have been overtaken by more powerful and more pervasive
images. The photos from Abu Ghraib have become iconic. The morning newspaper
features more faces of the fallen. A cell phone captures grainy shots of a
mishandled execution. On the battlefield of the image, the United States has
lost the Iraq War. .. So, to rescue his failed Iraq policy with more boots
on the ground, the president has had to resort again to words.

Stop the Next War
19.01.07. J. Raimondo, anti-war. All these legislative initiatives deal with
Iraq, with only one – House Joint Resolution 14 – confronting the key issue
on the war-and-peace front: Iran. This is a binding resolution that forbids
the President from ordering an attack on Iran absent military action against
U.S. forces, or a demonstrably imminent threat of attack.
Congress has long ago abdicated and delegated to the president its
constitutional responsibility to initiate wars.’

There is no War on Terror
24.01.07. Clare Dyer, Guardian. "The director of public prosecutions, Sir
Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing
Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a "war on terror"
and calling for a "culture of legislative restraint" in passing laws to deal
with terrorism.
Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a "fear-driven and inappropriate"
response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials
and the due process of law."